Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 374

Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 374

Because the plaintiff appeared likely to be otherwise impecunious, the Court inferred a sufficient short-term risk of disbursal of the moneys to justify Mareva relief until 5 June, but allowed release of $6,000 because that amount was likely to be needed in the short term for expenses permitting the litigation to be carried on.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Mareva Relief / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Short term Mareva relief granted.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'mareva Injunctions' 'preservation of Property Pending Determination of Rights' 'litigation Funding Expenses']
['equity'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'mareva Injunctions' 'preservation of Property Pending Determination of Rights' 'litigation Funding Expenses']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Mareva Relief / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether short term Mareva relief should be granted over the plaintiff's share of the net proceeds of sale of a house until 5 June." 'Whether any part of the restrained fund should be released to allow the plaintiff to meet expenses for ongoing litigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff appeared likely to be otherwise impecunious, the Court inferred a sufficient short-term risk of disbursal of the moneys to justify Mareva relief until 5 June, but allowed release of $6,000 because that amount was likely to be needed in the short term for expenses permitting the litigation to be carried on.

Court Disposition

Short term Mareva relief granted.

Orders

  • ['A restraint in the nature of Mareva relief was imposed on the disbursal of the fund up to and including 5 June.' 'The restraint did not apply to the sum of $6,000, which could be used for short-term expenses to permit the litigation to be carried on.']